Spock wrote:
JS is an RFA - so he may or not be qualified I suppose. Given the overall limited depth the Canucks have in their system, I can't see him just being thrown in the junk pile. He is probably too small to be a true centerman - might not be a bad idea to try him on wing. Problem being - the Canucks are very thin down the middle as we saw last season.

Re: defense pairings - I don't know who Torts will put with whom. But there is a serious lack of depth at defense without Ballard and Alberts. I would not give Barker another sniff at the ice - he was atrocious.

I wouldn't mind the talent being spread out among the lines and rolling the 4 lines to see if they can get some favorable matchups against 3rd pairing defensemen....

I forgot that Schroeder is RFA. That changes things a little. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he play a few stints on the wing during the WJC's? It's a while ago and I can't remember exactly.

I thought that Barker looked like a slower, and weaker shooting, version of Edler out there this year. I'm not saying bring him back, just that his hockey sense was often on par with our highest paid defenseman.....just fewer physical tools to go with it.

Depending on what happens with buyouts, trades, and free agency, the idea of spreading out the talent could be a good one. Right now we only have 3 players who can dominate the play to a degree that they would exploit a weak 3rd pairing. Henrik, Daniel, and Kesler. I think we would need one more true top 6 forward to make spreading it out worthwhile without sacrificing a lot on our top 2 lines.

Schroeder will be qualified. I don’t think it makes any sense not to. He’s a cheap young player who has very little trade value and has proven to be a serviceable, albeit marginal, NHL centre. He seems to have decent hockey sense and may yet turn into a decent NHL player.

I don’t think there’s much to be excited about here, but I don’t think it makes sense to give up on him at this point. He has played three full professional seasons though, so it’s getting close to put up or shut up time for Schroeder.

herb wrote:Schroeder will be qualified. I don’t think it makes any sense not to. He’s a cheap young player who has very little trade value and has proven to be a serviceable, albeit marginal, NHL centre. He seems to have decent hockey sense and may yet turn into a decent NHL player.

I don’t think there’s much to be excited about here, but I don’t think it makes sense to give up on him at this point. He has played three full professional seasons though, so it’s getting close to put up or shut up time for Schroeder.

Of course he did...he was a long ways down on the depth chart for a reason. I'm surprised given the desire for the organization to have 101 D-men that have logged NHL icetime at some point in their careers for depth.

I'm of the opinion that once you get past the first call up or two you better be hoping none of the top 4 are injured because those call ups really don't contribute a damn thing.

All except for the part where you have Bieksa playing with Edler. Disaster in the making.

One of Bieksa or Edler need to go if we are going to be playing some youngsters on the blueline. Young players like Blum, Corrado, and Weber, need to be paired with responsible guys like Garrison and Hamhuis, Responsible young defensemen like Tanev are few and far between, some first round picks being an exception. Inconsistent players like Edler and Bieksa are not guys you want playing next to young dmen who struggle with their own inconsistencies of inexperience.

Eye Bags had a chance to trade Burrows and or Edler, perhaps move the bible thumper in a package with a more attractive asset ( Tanev perhaps), but he chose to sit on his hands a la Brian Burke/Pat Quinn. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Same old stale core that is 2 and 12 in its last 14 playoff games. I wonder if Santorelli got a NTC being an Italian and a local boy.